9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal No. 0298/17-18/ITO, Ward-1, Nirmal/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2018-19, involving proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We notice at the outset that the assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities' action adding alleged un-explained expenditure amount of ₹ 5 lakhs in the course of assessment famed on 26-12-2017 and upheld in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion as under: "5. Ground No. 2 to 4 is with regard to addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- towards unexplained expenditure. 5.1. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that: "As per information received from DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad that a search & Seizure operation u/s. 132 was conducted in the case of M/s. Arihant Educational Society on 25.07.2013. During the search operation, it was noticed that the appellant had paid ₹ 20,00,000/- to M/s. Arihant Educational Society prescribed by government and additional amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- for the purpose of admission of his son D. Srujan Samrat. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) In contradictory to the said notice amount of ₹ 30,00,000/- the Ld. AO has taken the amount of ₹ 35,00,000/- as course fee and added ₹ 5,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure and completed the assessment based on such dumped and unsigned documents found from the premises of M/s. Arihant Educational Society, without bringing any corroborated material on record. j) The appellant relied in the judgments in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar reported in 74 ITR 696 (Bam), Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Oversees pvt. ltd. (ITA No. 692/2016 dated 26.05.2017) and W.P.(C) No. 9659 of 2015 (Rajiv Agarwal Vs. CIT) gated 16.03.2016 and Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC)." 5.3. With regard to the above submissions as submitted by the appellant, a remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer on 10.05.2018. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer submitted his remand report on 25.05.2018, which is as under: "Keeping in view the facts of the case and considering the failure on part of the assessee in furnishing the sources for the payment of ₹ 15,00,000/- as capitation fee despite the opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore requesting to consider the factual information in the above two tables. Further the AO received the subsequent information on 18.12.2017 at 6.13 pm through official email id from DCIT, Central Circle-2(2). He called the AR of the assessee in the late hours (around 7.00 PM) and issued a Notice dated 18.12.2017 for which the AR has acknowledged. Further the Ld. ITO has asked for the explanation for differential amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- which found by him from the wrongly mentioned total amount without considering the date-wise payments (which was ₹ 10,00,000/- only.) The AR clearly submitted that the assessee paid only ₹ 10,00,000/- as capitation fee. But the Ld. ITO without considering the AR statements and also without verifying the total of the date wise payments, within a short period of late hours on 18.12.2017, recorded order sheet and completed assessment with a wrong addition of ₹ 5,00,000/-. 5.5. With regard to the above submissions of the appellant, once again a remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer on 27.08.2018. In response the Assessing Officer submitted his remand report on 17.09.2018, which is as under: "A sear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt as against Shri D. Srujan Samrat at S. No. 17 is ₹ 35 and it also shows that the amount paid by the student is ₹ 17.5 and the balance to be paid is ₹ 17.5. As per Annexure-I & II which are part of seized material, the amount paid by Shri D. Ganapati towards prescribed fee and capitation fees is ₹ 35,00,000/- and assessee contention that he has paid only ₹ 30,00,000/- towards both the fees is incorrect. However, as per the assessee's submissions dated 20.08.2018 before the CIT(A) it is to submit that the assessee was requested to furnish the prescribed fee and amount paid in cash over and above prescribed fee details basing on the letter of DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad's letter dated 11.08.2016 vide notice u/s. 142(2) dated 06.09.2017 and show cause letter dated 23.11.2017. As per the search material the fee payment details were available in part only and since the assessee also has not fully furnished the receipts for prescribed fee and donations for verification, letters dated 12.10.2017 and 22.11.2017 were written to DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad requesting for copy of appraisal report so as to enable this office to compi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was ₹ 10,00,000 only. However, there was a typographical/total mistake in total column and based on which completion of assessment in unjustified." 5.7. With regard to the above ground, I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order, remand report dated 25.05.2018 & 17.09.2018 and submissions of the appellant. As per annexures enclosed in remand report dated 17.09.2018, it is seen that ₹ 35 lakhs was agreed by the appellant for his son Sri, D. Srujan Samrat and has paid ₹ 17.5 lakhs. The balance of ₹ 17.5 lakhs is yet to be paid. Since the detailed reasons mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the remand reports, it is seen that the appellant had explained sources for ₹ 30 lakhs, however failed to explain the sources for difference amount of ₹ 5 lakhs. Hence the submissions of the appellant are not accepted and the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-explanation of sources for the difference amount of ₹ 5 lakhs made, is confirmed". 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned addition. The same admittedly has arisen about the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
